Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

The revolution we are now living through is creating a social and political environment that, if it is not subjected to democratic control from below, will subvert the possibilities of freedom and justice that capitalism did much - if reluctantly - to foster.” (7) This estrangement from religion was accompanied by a growing interest in Marxism and a drift toward secular socialism. After leaving The Catholic Worker Harrington became a member of the Independent Socialist League, a small organization associated with the former Trotskyist leader Max Shachtman. Harrington and Shachtman believed that socialism, the promise of a just and fully democratic society, could not be realized under authoritarian Communism and they were both fiercely critical of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no guarantee that socialism will triumph - or that freedom and justice, even to the limited degree that they have been achieved until now, will survive the next century. All I claim here is that, if they are to survive, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.” (3) Harrington starts with a dictionary definition: “socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution”. There is no express discussion of the meaning of “public” in this context. However, it is implicit that it could be some variation of society or the state.

Harrington believed that capitalism had taken us a long way along the path to freedom and justice from the oppression of feudalism, whether willingly or not. However, in a sense, it had stalled and was now obstructing further progress:On learning his cancer was inoperable, renowned intellectual Michael Harrington simply asked the doctors to keep him alive long enough “to complete a summary statement of the themes I had thought of throughout an activist life.” And they did. He then discusses “utopian socialism”. He quotes Martin Buber: “the goal of Utopian socialism is to substitute society for State to the greatest degree possible, moreover a society that is genuine and not a State in disguise.” (29) It’s time to return to the concept of public ownership and what Harrington refers to as “socialisation”. During this period Harrington wrote The Other America: Poverty in the United States, a book that had an impact on the Kennedy administration, and on Lyndon B. Johnson's subsequent War on Poverty. Harrington became a widely read intellectual and political writer. He would frequently debate noted conservatives but would also clash with the younger radicals in the New Left movements. He was present at the 1962 SDS conference that led to the creation of the Port Huron Statement, where he argued that the final draft was insufficiently anti-Communist. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. referred to Harrington as the "only responsible radical" in America, a somewhat dubious distinction among those on the political left. His high profile landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents.

Harrington discusses Stalin in terms of War Communism, where the Soviet state was under internal threat from a civil war and an external threat from foreign capital and military intervention. At various stages, Harrington mentions social democracy. He doesn’t use any one particular definition of social democracy. Readers must extrapolate it from the context: One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions.

See Also

The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.” It might be noted that Harrington’s book was published in 1992, now more than 25 years past. Based on that, it might be said that his account is hardly appropriate to today’s political climate. I don’t think that’s the case, though. For one thing, many of his propositions seem to hold true. More important than arguments (generally) standing the test of time, it’s still a valuable book despite its age because many of the negative associations being drawn with socialism today predate publication, so Harrington is giving a historical and cultural context that is still necessary.

Stylistically, some might find Harrington a bit dry; it took me entirely too long to finish reading this book, although some of that might have just been because it was an absurdly busy three weeks and I was too burned out to focus. I tend to rather like Harrington's authorial "voice"; it's occasionally got a bit of dry humor, but mostly I find it sort of... soothing, in a way? It's certainly less grandstandy than a lot of other well-known socialist writers, and noticeably less pompous than, say, Irving Howe, though Harrington and Howe were good friends and seem to be on a similar ideological wavelength. At any rate, I'm interested enough to have started reading another Harrington book, Toward a Democratic Left, written in 1968, some of which is distressingly relevant, but that's for another review. Democratic state ownership means that the state was elected democratically, that it acquired ownership by democratic means, that it submits regularly to the democratic process by way of elections and that it retains ownership by democratic means. Implicitly, it did not acquire control and ownership by a revolutionary process. Harrington refers to “socialisation” as “a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority”. He also explains:Written by an avowed socialist in 1989 just after the market crash, this is a pretty useful overview of the roots of a mediated form of socialism presupposed by much of the educated class of America and Europe today. He argues for a form of socialism that works, in theory, with the market, rather than presupposing the abolition of the market. Harrington wants to make a case that this new democratic socialism is the hope for the 21st century, and, most of all, is not reducible to the authoritarian or dictatorial centralized socialism of Stalinism, Leninism or Third World communism. Communism for Harrington is an antisocialist system of bureaucratic collectivism not part of the history of socialism. I won't go into the details here, but in effect the book wants to refute the conservative argument that socialism is like squaring the circle, that any socialist policy leads inexorably down a royal road to serfdom, since it necessarily involves some sort of central planning, and central planning is the fastest way to frustrate the market's means of setting price according to supply and demand, ultimately concerning the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Socialism sought, precisely, the democratic socialisation of the process of elitist, irresponsible, and destructive socialisation of capitalism - a process that is very much at work today as revolutionary new modes of producing wealth are being introduced in ways that increase poverty and unemployment and widen the gap between the affluent and hungry areas of the world.” (15) Socialism: Past and Future is prominent thinker Michael Harrington’s final contribution: a thoughtful, intelligent, and compassionate treatise on the role of socialism both past and present in modern society. He is convincing in his application of classic socialist theory to current economic situations and modern political systems, and he examines the validity of the idea of “visionary gradualism” in bringing about a socialist agenda. He believes that if freedom and justice are to survive into the next century, the socialist movement will be a critical factor. The capitalist - and antisocial - socialisation of the world is indeed subverting its most priceless accomplishment, the creation of the possibility of freedom and justice. And there must be a genuine - and social - socialisation if the precious gains of the capitalist era are to be retained and deepened.” (8) In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats. I wondered whether this term meant something different in the US, compared with British Commonwealth countries. Socialism is a derogatory term for a political philosophy that is condemned by many Americans as more or less the same as Communism, so it didn’t make sense to me that Bernie embraced the term with conviction and enthusiasm in the Post-Communist era.This work "demonstrated - what all the succeeding poetry volumes would amply confirm - the exceptional number of different stanza forms and metres, whether inherited or invented, that Hardy was able to deploy... Hardy always disclaimed possession of a consistent philosophy, and in the preface to Poems of the Past and the Present described his poems as 'a series of feelings and fancies written down in widely differing moods and circumstances' - adding, perhaps with The Dynasts already in mind, 'Unadjusted impressions have their value, and the road to a true philosophy of life seems to lie in humbly recording diverse readings of its phenomena as they are forced upon us by chance and change'" (ODNB). Description During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist. How do you acquire power or control over the privately-owned means of production, if their owners resist? Can you only do so by way of the authority of the state? Socialisation’ describes two very different ways in which society can become more social: under capitalism, there is a trend toward a growing centralisation and planning that is eventually global, but it takes place from the top down; under socialism, that process is subjected to democratic control from below by the people and their communities.” (9)